The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the University of Florida can maintain its expulsion of law student Preston Damsky, who was removed from the institution after posting anti-Semitic content on X, formerly known as Twitter. The appeals court reversed a district court's preliminary injunction that had required the university to reinstate Damsky pending litigation.
In the case *Preston Damsky v. Chris Summerlin* (11th Cir. 2026), Circuit Judge Branch wrote for the three-judge panel that included Judges Newsom and Lagoa. The court granted the University of Florida's motion for a stay of the district court's injunction, finding that the university was likely to succeed on the merits of its defense.
The controversy began when Damsky, a student at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, made several posts on the social media platform X. Most notably, one post stated "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary." The university determined these posts violated its conduct policies and expelled Damsky from the law school.
Damsky subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against Chris Summerlin, the University of Florida's Dean of Students, arguing that his expulsion violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, where Damsky obtained a preliminary injunction requiring his reinstatement while the litigation proceeded.
However, the Eleventh Circuit found that Damsky's speech was likely not protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court noted that when read in context, Damsky's statements could reasonably be interpreted as calls for extralegal violence. The court determined that such speech caused serious disruption to other students' educational experiences and interfered with the school's ability to provide its services.
The court's analysis extended beyond the social media posts to examine Damsky's broader pattern of expression. In 2024, Damsky had written two seminar papers as part of his coursework at UF Law in which he argued that the United States was founded as a race-based nation state. The papers contended that the Constitution would survive only if Americans shared a commitment to racial nationalism.
One of Damsky's academic papers warned that "White America" faced a "demographic assault" and suggested that if the judiciary failed to remedy this perceived issue, then overthrowing the government might be necessary for whites "to survive as masters in the land of their ancestors." Another paper argued that "the hour is late, but we are not yet so" far gone, though the complete quote was not included in the available court documents.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision represents a significant ruling on the boundaries of free speech in educational settings, particularly regarding hate speech and calls for violence. Public universities, as government entities, generally cannot restrict speech based solely on its content or viewpoint. However, courts have recognized exceptions for speech that constitutes true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, or causes substantial disruption to the educational environment.
The court's finding that Damsky's speech could reasonably be interpreted as calls for extralegal violence places it outside First Amendment protection. This analysis aligns with Supreme Court precedent that excludes certain categories of speech from constitutional protection, including true threats and incitement to violence.
The case also highlights the ongoing challenges universities face in balancing free speech rights with maintaining safe educational environments. Educational institutions must navigate complex constitutional considerations when disciplining students for off-campus speech, particularly when that speech occurs on social media platforms.
The district court's initial grant of a preliminary injunction suggests that the trial judge found merit in Damsky's First Amendment claims. However, the Eleventh Circuit's reversal indicates that the appeals court viewed the case differently, particularly regarding the nature and context of Damsky's statements.
The University of Florida's successful appeal allows the institution to maintain Damsky's expulsion while the underlying litigation continues. The appeals court's stay of the preliminary injunction means Damsky will not be reinstated as a student during the pendency of the case.
This decision may influence how other educational institutions approach similar cases involving student speech that contains elements of hate speech or calls for violence. The ruling provides guidance on when universities can discipline students for social media posts and academic work that crosses the line from protected speech into unprotected categories.
The case will likely continue in the district court, where the merits of Damsky's First Amendment claims will be fully litigated. However, the Eleventh Circuit's analysis suggests that the university has strong legal grounds for its disciplinary action. The appeals court's finding that the speech likely constitutes unprotected calls for violence will be difficult for Damsky to overcome in subsequent proceedings.